Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Peter 1:19 - 1:19
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Pe_1:19. ἀλλὰ τιμίῳ αἵματι ] τιμίῳ forms the antithesis to φθαρτοῖς , in so far as the perishable is destitute of true worth.
αἵματι ] refers not only to the death, but to the bloody death of Christ; cf. Heb_9:22.
ὡς … ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου Χριστοῦ ] ὡς … ἀσπίλου is in antecedent apposition to Χριστοῦ (Wiesinger, de Wette-Brückner), as in chap. 1Pe_2:7, where likewise ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει is in similar apposition to τῷ γυναικείῳ (sc. σκεύει ). It is incorrect to supply, with Steiger, Schott, and others, “ αἵματι ” before ἀμνοῦ , taking Χριστοῦ either as an explanatory adjunct (Steiger), or connecting it directly with αἵματι (Schott, Hofmann).
ὡς ] is also here not merely comparative, as, among others, Schott and Hofmann hold, maintaining that “by ἀμνοῦ only an actual lamb is meant,” but it emphasizes that Christ is a blameless and spotless lamb (Gerhard, de Wette-Brückner).[91]
ἈΜΝΌς is, as Brückner also assumes, to be understood of a sacrificial lamb. This is clear both from the connection—since the ransom by the αἷμα of Christ (Lev_17:11) is here in question—and from the attributes ἌΜΩΜΟς and ἌΣΠΙΛΟς , of which the former is used in the O. T. expressly to denote the faultlessness of animals taken for sacrifice ( úÌÈîÄéí , LXX.: ἌΜΩΜΟς ),—to this class lambs also belonged. The precise designation: a lamb, was probably suggested to Peter by Isa_53:7 (cf. chap. 1Pe_2:22 ff.); from this it must not, however, be inferred, with Weiss (p. 227 ff.) and Schott, that there is nowhere here any reference to the idea of sacrifice. For although the passage in Isaiah compares the servant of God to a lamb simply on account of the patience he exhibited in the midst of his sufferings, still it is based so wholly on the idea of sacrifice, and the sufferings of Christ are so expressly presented as propitiatory, that it is easily explainable how, with this passage applied to Him, Christ could have been thought of precisely as a sacrificial lamb. Doubtless it is not Peter’s intention to give special prominence to the fact that Christ is the sacrificial lamb designated by Isaiah’s prophecy; for in that case the definite article would not have been wanting (cf. Joh_1:29, and Meyer in loc.); but alluding to the above passage, Peter styles Him generally a lamb,—which, however, he conceives as a sacrificial lamb. There is no direct allusion (Wiesinger) here to the paschal lamb (de Wette-Brückner, Schott); the want of the article forbids it. Hofmann, though he has justly recognised this, still firmly holds by the reference to the paschal lamb;—only in thus far, however, that he terms the slaying of it “the occurrence” which “was here present to the apostle’s mind.”[92] But the fact that the blood of this lamb did not serve to ransom Israel out of Egypt, but to preserve them from the destroying angel, is opposed to any such allusion. Further, it must not be left unnoticed that in the N. T. the paschal lamb is always styled ΤῸ ΠΆΣΧΑ ; and in the passage treating of it in Exodus 12 in the LXX., the expression ΠΡΌΒΑΤΟΝ only, and never ἈΜΝΌς , is employed.
The adjunct: Ὡς … ἈΣΠΊΛΟΥ , serves to specify particularly the blood of Christ as sacrificial, and not merely to give a nearer definition of its preciousness (the τίμιον ), inasmuch as, “according to Petrine conceptions, it is precisely the innocence (denoted here by the two attributes) and the patience (conveyed by ἀμνός ) which give to the suffering its ΤΙΜΉ ” (as opposed to Weiss, p. 281 f.). The preciousness of the blood lies in this, that it is the blood of Christ; its redemptive power in this, that He shed it as a sacrificial lamb without blemish and fault.[93]
With ἄμωμος , cf. in addition to Lev_22:18 ff., especially Heb_9:14.
ἄσπιλος ] is not to be found in the LXX. and in the N. T. only metaphorically; the two expressions here conjoined are a reproduction of the çÌÈîÄéí ëÌÈìÎîåÌí ìÉà éÄäÀéÆäÎáÌåÉ , Lev_22:18 ff. (Wiesinger). All the commentators construe Χριστοῦ with what precedes, Hofmann only excepted, who separates it therefrom, and connects it with what follows, taking Χριστοῦ προεγνωσμένου κ . τ . λ . as an absolute genitive (i.e. “in that … Christ … was foreordained,” etc.). But this construction does not specify by whose blood the redemption was accomplished, nor does it give a clear logical connection between the thought of the participial and that of the principal clause.
[91] If ὡς be taken as instituting a comparison, there then arises the singular thought, that the blood of Christ is as precious as that of a lamb without blemish. Hofmann, indeed, avoids this conclusion by supplying to ὡς not τιμίῳ αἵματι , but αἵματι only, and observes that the shedding of blood alone (not the shedding of precious blood) is compared to the slaying of a spotless lamb; but there is not the slightest justification for thus separating τιμίῳ from αἵματι . The apostle would in some way hare indicated it by prefixing at least a simple αἵματι to ἀμνοῦ .
[92] Hofmann says: “The meaning is not, that the same was done to Christ as to the paschal lamb, but the recollection of the paschal lamb explains only how Peter came to compare the shedding of Christ’s blood with the shedding of the blood of a spotless lamb.”—As to whether the paschal lamb should be considered as a sacrificial lamb (Keil on Genesis 12.) or not, is a matter of dispute, which cannot be decided here.
[93] Schott, in opposition to this, asserts: “this blood can redeem because it is that of the divine Mediator ( Χριστός ), but it is valuable in that it is the blood of an innocent Saint.” This is, however, erroneous, since this blood has power to redeem only, because Christ shed it as a sacrifice for propitiation. But it is not clear why this blood should not even have its full worth from the fact that it is the blood of the Mediator.
REMARK.
It must be observed that whilst the power of propitiation, i.e. of blotting out sin, is attributed to the blood of the sacrifice, Lev_16:11, the blood of Christ is here specified as the means by which we are redeemed from the ματαία ἀναστροφή . From this it must not be concluded, with Weiss (p. 279), that the blood of Christ is not regarded here as the blood of offering, inasmuch “as the sacrifice can have an expiatory, but not a redemptory worth;”—for the two are in no way opposed to each other. The expiation is nothing different from the redemption, i.e. ransom from the guilt by the blood freely shed. The redemption, however, which is here spoken of, though doubtless not identical with expiation, is yet a necessary condition of it,—a circumstance which Pfleiderer also fails to observe, when he says that the passage has reference only “to the putting away of a life of sin, to moral improvement, not to expiation of the guilt of sin.”